The former CEO of IATA, G. Bisignani, said in a statement that London Heathrow Airport has lost its position as Europe’s primary hub airport, due to its runway capacity shortage, and the better performance of direct competitors as FRA, CDG and AMS.

I'm surprised that's the only reason! From a passenger perspective, if I had to choose one of those airport to connect at, there's a good chance it wouldn't be LHR. IMO, they need to rethink their terminals when they create their next Master Plan. It takes a very long time to travel from security to your gate at LHR, plus with only two runways at BA's largest hub, I not surprised that those other airports are performing better (at least in terms of flights being on-time).

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):The former CEO of IATA, G. Bisignani, said in a statement that London Heathrow Airport has lost its position as Europe’s primary hub airport, due to its runway capacity shortage, and the better performance of direct competitors as FRA, CDG and AMS.

The only solution to London's LHR problem is for them to build a new international airport near the Thames estuary which will replace LHR. The terminal layout in LHR is a pain for transiting passengers unless your transiting within terminal 5.

That completely contradicts the poster's claim that LHR was losing the battle.

Parts of the airport are of a dated design but if you are connecting to most BA services, this will be done within T5.
(Apart from a handful of Middle East destinations that the midhaul 321s serve)

We do need the third runway or a completely new airport to boot but it doesn't seem the government want to spend the cash or commit. Plus there has been a lot of resistance from local house owners and green parliament members who worry that the increase in traffic will result in higher pollution levels.

What really annoys me is the huge increases in airport taxes and duty we have to pay

and project the stated growth figures forward ten years this is what we get:

PASSENGERS (000s) 12 months up to July 2022:

- LHR 79,953 at 1.7 per cent growth per annum
- CDG 76,416 at 2.7 per cent growth per annum
- FRA 78,738 at 4.0 per cent growth per annum
- AMS 75,459 at 5.1 per cent growth per annum

Is such a projection using actual annual growth figures as at July 2012 fair? Possibly not. History is not necessarily a guide to the future. But it is all we have got other than an intelligent guess (better known by "experts" as a "forecast").

Nevertheless since current growth rates at LHR are restricted by capacity I would hazard a guess that as more and more 380s come into service, of the four airports LHR stands to benefit most in terms of passenger numbers.

Finally note that on historic projections the airport that will actually decline most in RELATIVE importance is CDG which has (in my figures) been overtaken by FRA by 2022 and will be overtaken by AMS in 2023. And it is also 2023 when FRA edges ahead of LHR in terms of passenger numbers. But that is a long time away.

However the chances of all of this actually happening are not that good. Nothing is certain.

LHR hasn't lost it's position for largest number if passengers, just as a hub. If that's the case - fair enough. Hubbing transfer passengers don't do that much for the UK economy - they don't stay in the country, they don't spend in hotels bars and restaurants or on taxis and other travel etc and hubbing passengers don't do business in the UK. So if Johnny Foreigner goes elsewhere in Europe just to change planes, let them get on with it. Who says LHR really needs to be a (or the) hub for Europe? OK, some ex-LHR routes are currently propped up by transfer traffic, but LHR (complimented by LGW) can stand on its own as an O&D airport for London servings the majority of destinations folks coming from or to the UK need. And as air travel growth continues, if declining transfer traffic makes room for more O&D traffic, that's not a bad result at all.

Quoting miaintl (Reply 3):The only solution to London's LHR problem is for them to build a new international airport near the Thames estuary which will replace LHR.

I disagree. That would take years or even a decade to develop. New terminal 2 will help LHR, but third runway is necessary. There is many ways to make this situation better, but they need a new runway, if they want to keep LHR as a Europe’s primary hub.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 1):I'm surprised that's the only reason! From a passenger perspective, if I had to choose one of those airport to connect at, there's a good chance it wouldn't be LHR. IMO, they need to rethink their terminals when they create their next Master Plan. It takes a very long time to travel from security to your gate at LHR, plus with only two runways at BA's largest hub, I not surprised that those other airports are performing better (at least in terms of flights being on-time).

Well this is changing:

- Terminal 5 has been voted one of the world's best airport facilities on numerous occasions and has improved the BA experience quite considerably.

- Terminal 2 will offer a similar experience to Star Alliance carriers on its completion and will eventually replace Terminal 1 as well as the old T2.

- Terminal 4 has undergone a big refurbishment and currently provides easy transition for Sky Team carriers and other carriers.

- Terminal 3 is LHR's one remaining problem.. My guess would be that it will be gradually replaced after the Terminal 2 project is complete...

So essentially LHR is getting there... slowly but surely. It is a much better experience than it was 10 years ago and in the next 5 years it will rank up there with the likes of AMS and FRA for passenger service.

The only problem really now is runway capacity... but unfortunately the government are in deadlock.. They see the need for it but bearing in mind there are a lot of Tory voters under the flightpath, it would be tantamount to political suicide. Thena gain if LHR gets moved, who will be the first to complain... said Tory voters.

Yes, the reality is that BA and BAA are the only large organisations with an immediate vested interest in trying to continue to sustain LHR as a hub rather than allowing it to become an O&D airport. Again, as air travel continues to grow getting shut of pure transfer traffic to other hubs (taking with them the airport congestion, pollution and lack of significant input to the economy) won't be a bad result as it'll create more room for O&D traffic. Whilst some LHR routes undoubtedly benefit from transfer traffic, I don't believe LHR needs to be dependent on transfer traffic and as growth continues LHR will continue to thrive serving UK markets.

LHR/London is the one place in Europe that doesn't need to be a hub because of the dominant position London occupies in O&D compared with the rest of Europe.

IATA, BA and the airlines all care about whether somewhere is a hub but from the perspective of the population of very densely populated SE England they would probably prefer that the transfer pax (and their associated noise and polution) go somewhere else in Europe and clog up their airports and airspace.

I think we focus too much here on whether LHR can compete for transfers versus CDG, AMS or FRA when actually it doesn't need to.

(my perspective is as a local LHR resident who wants/needs good global air links and is an aviation enthusiast)

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 7):they don't spend in hotels bars and restaurants or on taxis and other travel etc and hubbing passengers don't do business in the UK. So if Johnny Foreigner goes elsewhere in Europe just to change planes, let them get on with it.

Not sure the numerous restaurants, bars, and shops at LHR would agree....

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 15):34% pax are transitting
Creates many jobs
Creates more routes that wouldn't be sustainable without hubbing

And with that, comes corporate head quarters, distribution centres, and even, believe it or not
factories. Some good need to get to places as fast as possible, or have heaps of staff having to travel the world
to get the good out there. Time is money and the ability to do that is a major economic driver. Look at the US and how
fiercely states fight to maintain Hub Status, and how cities that are hubs like Minneapolis and Atlanta enjoy significant
advantages over their rivals. London is always gonna have lots of direct routes, but think of say secondary cities in China or even in north America. Say somewhere like Phoenix. Would it be sustainable without transfer traffic? At a guess I'd say no, but having it there is very good for british business to get in and out of America fast.

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 11):The only problem really now is runway capacity... but unfortunately the government are in deadlock.. They see the need for it but bearing in mind there are a lot of Tory voters under the flightpath, it would be tantamount to political suicide. Thena gain if LHR gets moved, who will be the first to complain... said Tory voters.

Exactly! Not that the Tories need to worry about being in government again for some time (likewise for LibDems); it'll be UKIP / Labour coalition I suspect that still won't make a decision. Heathrow is a political can that keeps getting kicked down the road for after the next general election and so on. We either need UK political parties to get on with the needs of the country, not worrying about the next election (can't see that happening) or we need such major economical and strategic infrastructure decisions to be made by independent non-political bodies rather than HM Government to get anything done. Such a body would be directed by HM Government to set up a panel into, for example, runway expansion in the UK. The panel should have representatives from the local communities affected, from commerce (e.g. IoD), from the specific industry concerned (e.g. airport operator), civil servents from relevent government department (e.g. Dept for Transport), topic experts, legal experts etc with each member having an equal vote in the decision process. Then at least the government can say it's not our decision!

Heathrow needs a 3rd runway to ease capacity issues and allow for weather related congestion.
Heathrow needs direct connection to the UK national rail network, preferably the new HS one. I just find it so odd that major airports like LGW, STN & MAN have national rail stations within terminal complex, but the UK's hub, LHR, doesn't. Domestic air connections in the UK are discouraged by high APD so LHR needs to be connected to the nation by rail.

Quoting spud757 (Reply 18):Domestic air connections in the UK are discouraged by high APD so LHR needs to be connected to the nation by rail.

I have a fair easier to implement and cheaper solution. Abandon the APD tax. All these wonderful ideas about replacing LHR etc... well i have news for your all. the UK has higher priorities than shutting down functional airports to replace them with new ones. It will come down to this, LHR expands or nothing at all. At least in the short and medium term. Plus what will likely happen to STN and LGW? They'll of course expand! It might even be easier if you want to go down the replacement path of building several additional runways at one of these airports and terminals and shutting heathrow down. That's going to be cheaper than building on water.

Who says CDG or FRA are that much better ? In CDG, you have to catch buses to remote "gates" to transfer. In FRA, the departure terminals are cramped and you have to take trams and walk a lot to transfer. Only at AMS, the transfer is smooth.

LHR would be stronger if not for the high airport taxes and APD (for UK originating passengers).

And the number of cities served by LHR to USA consistently is much higher than any European airport, inspite of what is mentioned above.

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 7):Hubbing transfer passengers don't do that much for the UK economy - they don't stay in the country, they don't spend in hotels bars and restaurants or on taxis and other travel etc and hubbing passengers don't do business in the UK.

Transfer passengers help make viable services that would not exist otherwise. When taken together those additional services make a difference in how the local economy grows because it is a factor on where companies decide to locate facilities and hold events. A limited Heathrow is sinking London in the long run.

That's what they proposed at FRA as well, to connect HHN with a HSR or "Transrapid" line.

besides the costs, who's going to pay for the € 50 upwards a single passage would cot, HHN would need a second runway which would be opposed and LGW is up to the linmit and over as well, needing also a second runway.

for the same trouble, a third one at LHR would be reality.

Almost forgot, such connections would fall to the bottom in the reservation systems since it would be listed - example
JFK-LHR-LGW-HEL, all same airport connections would have priority.

Quoting hohd (Reply 21):And the number of cities served by LHR to USA consistently is much higher than any European airport, inspite of what is mentioned above.

Let's be factual about this topic.
So where does factsonl get his numbers from, and where does hohd get his from? References would be appreciated, but since we're all able to count by ourself, why not just name the 21 (or more) destinations?

// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.

Yeah right, LHR is not going to become redundant as an international airport. I don't think that people are going to go to different airports just because the ex-president says so. The fact that London is a major financial hub and also a major tourist centre attracting millions of people per year to it would still make LHR relevant. I don't want to go to CDG or AMS when I am going to Britain for business. It is still the predominant airport in Europe for connections to around the world and from the numbers quoted in the above posts is number one today and for the foreseeable future will continue to be number one.

of the top twenty trans-Atlantic airport pairs measured by seats offered per week in the Winter 2011-12 timetable, no fewer than eleven, including all of the top four, include LHR.

Of the top twenty airport pairs just two pairs include CDG, only one FRA and AMS does not feature in the top twenty at all.

In terms of seat numbers per week there werre 33,281 on offer between LHR and JFK.

The top trans-Atlantic pair that included CDG was also to and from JFK. But at !2,079 seats this market was little more than one third the size of the LHR/JFK market. At 8,379 the FRA/LHR market was almost exactly a quarter the size of the LHR/JFK market.

So by this metric the claim that LHR is loosing out seems to be sadly misplaced. But as I said before there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

These statistics show that fourteen out of the twenty include the four identified hubs. To complete the picture of the eastern end, the missing six comprise ORY and MAD (2 each) and LGW and TLV (1 each).

In terms of flights per week the top five airport pairs were LHR/JFK (120 flights a week), LHR/EWR (57), LHR/LAX (48) and then jointly in fourth place LHR/MIA and CDG/JFK (47). FRA/JFK was the tenth largest trans-Atlantic pair with 29 flights a week.

For business travelers, I don't feel the LHR will have too much of an issue. However, APD is a serious issue, at least for me, and has discouraged me from flying through LHR from EDI before. I can easily stay with family in Paris and get there via Easyjet, then plan my long-haul from there for a saving of at least £100, with the plus of being in Paris a few days. I can see people not wanted to do this though, as it is less convenient.

To me, transitting in LHR and CDG are very similar - if you're transitting with BA in LHR, then it's fine, but transit from BA to AA in Terminal 3 and it's a terrible experience. In CDG, as long as you keep your flights to Air France (and some, but not all SkyTeam), then the transit is bearable.

AMS is my favorite airport to transit in, not only because the airport is conveniently built, but KLM is also quite nice.

Of course, that's just my opinion on what I do to avoid LHR - I'll be going to heathrow for the first time in about a year an a half this december. LHR isn't going to be losing its tourists and businessmen, and the facilities in the airport are improving - I don't think LHR is going to be redundant anytime soon.

Other than 'my dog is bigger than your dog' type arguments, does anyone care who has the biggest airport, biggest hub, largest number of movements etc. Apart from ahything else, surely it's misleading comparing LHR to AMS and FRA as they are ONE airport cities, which London isn't. For the people of London, it's a massive benefit to have LGW, STN, LTN and LCY as alternatives, rather than having to trek to a 4 runway single hub airport.

As for connecting traffic, apart from transatlantic destinations, LHR is poorly connected for transfers to central Europe anyway, and this would apply even if it had 6 runways.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 35):Apart from anything else, surely it's misleading comparing LHR to AMS and FRA as they are ONE airport cities, which London isn't. For the people of London, it's a massive benefit to have LGW, STN, LTN and LCY as alternatives, rather than having to trek to a 4 runway single hub airport.

I do not think it is misleading at all. LHR is serving Greater London, which lies on a relatively small island (Great Britain) compared to continental Europe. Due to this fact London needs much more air traffic then cities/areas like Greater Paris (which also has two large(r) airports), the whole Frankfurt or Amsterdam and the Randstad area.

But LHR is by far the main airport, the main hub for London and its direct surroundings. And can therefore in my opinion be very well compared to CDG, FRA and AMS without misleading anyone.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 30): The fact that London is a major financial hub and also a major tourist centre attracting millions of people per year to it would still make LHR relevant. I don't want to go to CDG or AMS when I am going to Britain for business.

This is not about being relevant. It is about being number ONE. Rome is the Italian capital, center of the Catholic Church, major tourist city. Rome and FCO are "relevant". Still FCO is not even mentioned in this thread. If you are Ok with LHR being as relevant as FCO, then LHR needs nothing.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 30):is number one today and for the foreseeable future will continue to be number one.

Don't count on it. There are many examples in the world of one city toppling another over time.

Quoting 777klm (Reply 36):Although I agree with you that LHR is far from loosing out, you do realize there's more than just transatlantic service?

Quite. But as this thread is somewhat misleadingly titled ""LHR Losing The Battle, FRA / CDG / AMS Winning" I thought it worthwhile pointing out just how much catching up the alledged "loser" the claimed "winners" need to achieve in what is arguably one of commercial aviations most important market segments.

Here it is worth recognising that geography plays an important part in determining the role of a given airport as a hub in worldwide commercial aviation. With its position near the extremity of north west Europe the role played by LHR as an eastern trans-Atlantic hub is and is likely to remain exceedingly high. FRA is only around 400 miles from LHR but its role is significantly different. I considered this important when reading earlier replies in this thread stating the like of:

Hi, as a frequent international traveler I try to avoid LHR like the plague, especially if you have to change terminal, it can take you up to a hour, and I am not even mentioning the ridiculous fees they charge for business class passengers just for the pleasure of flying thru the airport

If you compare LHR which is supposed to be the busiest airport in Europe to ATL which is the biggest in the US or the world, you will find that ATL is a pleasure to fly thru with everything from security to terminal changes flowing smoothly to LHR where everything besides for shopping is a disaster

If you have to lose a battle, this isn't a terrible one to lose. O&D traffic is far more valuable than connecting. And while there is an argument to be made.for a hub allowing destinations a spoke wouldn't, LHR is such huge O&D market for just about everywhere that it's going be affected much less than a secondary city like Atlanta or Munich would be.

He's entitled to his opinion.
One of his predecessors, Bob Ayling didn't think connecting traffic was worth chasing.
If you look at TATL fares connecting through someone else's european hub vs. fares for direct flights I'm inclined to agree with Bob - especially when your O&D market is the center of the known universe

I was once on a flight LHR-EWR (B777)with 29 passengers including myself, 5 of us in club world. I was connecting from FRA- I would not say that the connecting pax made the day for BA, but the additional revenue was certainly welcomed.

Even a large O&D market cannot fill all flights from its own catchment area and why change a system that works quite well all over the world? The rest of Britain minus GLAEDI and MAN is already forced to connect elswehere in Europe because of lacking capacity at LHR. That should be reason enough to start building a third runway PDQ.

Quoting raffik (Reply 45):I was shocked at FRA. It was a very dark and dingy airport- low ceilings and quite gloomy.

The old terminal at FRA has these characteristics. But still they do not bother me that much, I still like it and was not shocked when I saw it for the first time. The newer terminal on the East side however is much, much nicer, I will give you that. .

And now they are building the huge terminal South which will increase the capacity of the Frankfurt airport with another 30-35 million passengers per year.

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 7):LHR hasn't lost it's position for largest number if passengers, just as a hub.

Exactly. A lot of people in this thread are missing that. Of course LHR is and will remain a major airport. Of course it will continue to post high pax numbers. It's London! It has all the O&D and high-yield pax any airline could ever wish for!

But it is starting to lose as a hub. This will become more evident once the crisis is over and traffic growth starts again - elsewhere. Already, people from UK regions are transferring via other EU airports due to lack of LHR capacity. Over time, LHR will become more and more of an O&D airport. It will start to lose connectivity as some destinations previously sustained by connecting flights become unviable.

But...if people in the UK are fine with LHR losing its hub position and becoming an O&D airport, that's fine too. There will be other places to transfer. London will however lose connectivity to the rest of the world.

It's quite ironic - now that the 4th runway has solved the capacity issue and would enable FRA's further development as a world gateway, they are shot in the foot by the night ban. FRA's hub status is certainly under threat as well.

Quoting tommyy (Reply 41): and I am not even mentioning the ridiculous fees they charge for business class passengers just for the pleasure of flying thru the airport

There is no APD when you fly thru.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 47):It's quite ironic - now that the 4th runway has solved the capacity issue and would enable FRA's further development as a world gateway, they are shot in the foot by the night ban. FRA's hub status is certainly under threat as well.

FRA is a much better hub with the 4th runway and extended night ban than it was before.

Quoting miaintl (Reply 3):The only solution to London's LHR problem is for them to build a new international airport near the Thames estuary which will replace LHR.

That's exactly what i think. You can't go on adding capacity to LHR by building more runways, soon enough you'll run out of land to build on. It's also time we took the pressure of unemployment off Kent or Essex.

Whenever I have to transit in Europe I will normally do it through Paris CDG. Air France have great in-flight catering and CDG doesn't look like a shopping centre with aircraft like LHR or LGW.

I know airports make money through commerce but there need to be a balance of comfortable seating and access to shops.